By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a speech in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, Donald Trump defended his tariff policies, despite growing concerns about rising costs of living. He reiterated his support for tariffs, claiming they generate revenue, while also acknowledging the impact on prices. However, evidence suggests a measurable upward pressure on consumer prices due to these tariffs, according to a Federal Reserve report. Despite this, Trump has rolled back certain tariffs, though consumer sentiment remains low, and some Democrats are criticizing his trade policies ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.
Read the original article here
Trump Defends Tariffs As He Launches Economic Tour: ‘You can give up certain products. You could give up pencils.’
The subject of Trump’s economic strategy and his recent tour naturally brings us to his stance on tariffs and the surprising example he used to illustrate his point: pencils. It’s a bit jarring, really, to hear that the solution to economic woes is to simply *do without*.
The essence of the argument seems to be that we, as consumers, should be prepared to “give up certain products.” And in his specific example, the implication is that children, in particular, don’t need the abundance of pencils they might currently possess. According to this line of thinking, if we just scaled back our consumption of seemingly non-essential items like pencils, somehow the larger economic picture would improve. It is like the saying, all you need is a pencil and a dream.
One can’t help but notice the disconnect here, the lack of touch with the real world. While he boasts of an A++++ economy, the reality for many is a feeling of diminishing purchasing power. Rising costs of everyday items, from basic groceries to even holiday ornaments, are a harsh reminder of the challenges people are facing. To suggest that these issues can be solved by sacrificing something as simple and vital as a pencil feels tone-deaf and out of touch.
Trump’s rhetoric, characterized by bold pronouncements, often misses the mark. He seems to be descending into a place where his words hold less and less weight, particularly when trying to connect with a wider audience. If the economy is as “red hot” as claimed, why the need to sacrifice? Why are we being told to forgo even the simplest of things? If things are so great, why should anyone have to give anything up?
The logic seems to be: if the cost of an item is perceived as too high, the solution is simply to not buy it. This idea is presented as a practical solution, and the pencil example is at the core of this. The problem with this reasoning is the lack of connection to the economic realities the average person faces. Inflation is real. It’s not a hoax. And the impact of tariffs, as studies have shown, has a very real impact on prices.
This stance, however, isn’t new. He’s been consistent in this messaging. His argument has been consistently that perhaps Americans have too much, and need to moderate their consumption.
It’s interesting to hear a former president, who should be familiar with the economic challenges, talking about sacrifices that feel unrealistic and even a bit condescending. The world isn’t seen through the lens of a person of the people, just through a very specific point of view.
When you’re told to give up things, to have fewer of things, it becomes hard to take seriously. It feels like a fundamental misunderstanding of the actual challenges people face. The conversation should be about the core issues. How are we helping Americans who have children, how are we helping our schools? It’s not about the pencils.
The message is clear: if you can’t afford the essentials, cut back on non-essentials. Maybe instead of three golf trips, he could have just one, you know?
In the end, it’s not about the pencils or the dolls. It’s about the economic disconnect and the questionable solutions proposed.